[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GP sampling
Jon, you addressed this to me, though Alex was the sender. However,
you have inadvertantly responded to an incineration expert. I probably
know as much as anybody about the industry and its emissions. I would
be the last to defend the industry as a whole, but you made a few
incorrect statements. As such:
> From: Jon Campbell <email@example.com>
> Please wake up and smell the dioxin. If the wastes are
> taken to a rotary kiln incinerator, they most certainly make
> it to the air because ALL ROTARY KILN INCINERATORS
> HAVE ESCAPE VENTS (the DUMP STACK)
> WHICH ARE NOT MONITORED.
a) all rotary kilns do not have escape vents; many designs avoid the
escape vent mechanism by overengineering post effluent discharge ducts
and treatment devices to allow for down time in any one device or a
compression change in the main incinerator
b) if a rotary kiln is burning haz waste and has a dump stack, the dump
stack is monitored for opening and closure. If in the event the dump
stack is opened, the automatic waste feed cutoff has to activate
I do not want to minimize the impact of this problem however. The very
first source I ever studied had the bypass vent stuck 30% open - a
sewage sludge incinerator. You want worse - it was about 3 miles from
the Washington Monument. But the same impact could be had from any
industry - not just incinerators. It is all well to focus on them as
some great evil, but many sources have worse problems.
> If they are burned in
> a cement kiln, they most certainly make it to the air
> because CEMENT KILNS CANNOT BE TUNED TO
> HAVE EXTREMELY HIGH DESTRUCTION and REMOVAL
> EFFICIENCY! (Their parameters are rather rigid for highest
> quality cement production, not designed to be
> tunable for burn efficiency and cleanliness for every
> kind of fuel they are burning)
You are correct, but a cement kiln (which is not a favorite of mine
anyway) does test the destruction and removal efficiency of the system.
In terms of the law only, it does not matter whether it is optimally
tuned for destruction, just sufficient to meet the federal guidelines
for destroying that particular waste stream.
> If you are a toxic waste expert, you should know this. If you
> are not a toxic waste expert, then don't make statements
> that lead people to believe you are.
I did not make the statement, but you have incorrectly characterized
haz waste incinerators. This is not to say I defend them all; many I
would shut down. But the same goes for other industries that have
nothing to do with waste incineration; it depends on the specific
source. I've been to a natural gas boiler I would shut down, and I've
been to glass plants that put up a lot more carcinogenic metals than
modern incinerators (aka Liverpool).
> You are comparing the activities of an organization
> committed to the environment and the continued
> habitability of the planet, who sometimes need to
> break the law to get the information they need,
The mission of Greenpeace is to be lauded at every chance; however,
they are not beyond the law, and they are not above lying. This does
not make the issues irrelevant and it does not make everybody in
Greenpeace suspect - but it is far from pristine in this regard. And
the only people that are to blame are Greenpeace.
> with companies that have purposely hidden important
> data from the public and have made deals with the
> EPA administrators to do so. I find that comparison
> appauling. Greenpeace's activities are not "Black Bag
> Jobs". I already stated that there were times when
> higher laws take precedent.
The argument works both ways; what is the higher law of a
capitalist-based industry? Profit. So it is all right for your higher
laws to take precedent, but not theirs? Or if you use a little bit of
violence, then it is okay for them to respond in a like fashion? You
have to be a little more careful of the reasons than just the "ends
justify the means" or "higher laws take precedent." Too many idiots in
industry and wise-use groups tend to make the same distinction.
> Why are you so concerned what Greenpeace does?
> Whether Greenpeace got their samples by scaling a fence
> or politely asking Dow, etc. to let them scoop it up is
> really immaterial. They have not harmed the companies'
> property, or stolen data so it cannot be used.
A lot of damage could have been done by their ignorance. You do
not just break into an industrial facility that has high pressure
lines, chemicals, and batch reactors. The people who committed these
acts could have damaged the environment, personal property, and cost
lives with just a simple mistake in an attempt to grab a sample. If
you don't think so, talk to a few dozen survivors of facilities that
blown up or leaked a chemical with people that should have know what
they were doing, not just "guest" visitors who had no clues. I been
at plants that have had whole walls blast out by one simple mistake
with one valve.
> It will be fascinating to see what
> Dow and others say at the Dioxin Conference regarding
> dioxin contamination of their end waste and whether
> it matches what Greenpeace found...
And if it does not? They will claim Greenpeace is lying and will have
the law to back them up. There were other ways to do this . . .